We need less horse back generals

axe11154

We need less horse back generals simple as that.
why?
because it seems there are so many ways to kill the horse riders its just ridiculous. If your general goes in battle he could die for any one reason. Its annoying I have a unit on the battle field and All I can do is make him run away.


Having a general not on a horse would be awesome.
And I mean he starts of the horse and maybe leades something besides swords men.
Like flintlocks or spears

daelin4#9896

Which game?

Having a general on horseback makes him more vulnerable to cavalry. I'd prefer the mobility to get him in and out of there. Also, You risk a lot committing your general to a fight. He's there to lead by command.

Ace_Blazer

Well generals need to be mobile to apply their morale bonus where needed. Mounted generals can also be extremely useful in a charge to influence a battle at its crisis point. Foot generals imply a more defensive stance, and you risk your general getting surrounded and killed.

Maeda_Toshiie

I remember royal (not general, which can be any unit type) units on foot in Wes's MedMod for MTW. In MTW, royal units could dismount into foot units in siege (or even field battles for High and Late Royal Knights).

Actually it is not inconceivable to have dismounted generals in Sengoku Japan. Most generals tend to stay in the rear and command while sitting on a stool (not horseback). However, the AI would probably not handle it well, so maybe a dismount option for humans only (not just during sieges but also field battles)?

Ace_Blazer

Well in S2 Generals have the stand and fight ability right?

Half_Life_Expert

Plus, didn't almost all generals ride around on horses prior to automobiles?

Historical Accuracy people!!!!

DJMuschmeister

I'm pretty much with Half Life Expert here. In my opinion the best gameplay is the most realistic, and in most of history the general has been mounted because it's a sign of stature, makes him more inspiring, and of course he wants to be able to get away from the battle in a pinch.

But I'd really like to see more dismountable cavalry units like they had in MTW.

daelin4#9896

A general by definition has its primary role as a commanding officer. Alexander is one of the very rare exceptions of being the commander (and king, no less) to actually lead in battles. The value of generals are not to go in and get themselves killed, there are plenty of troops to do that. Owning and riding a horse was a matter of social status as well; Roman cavalry prior to Marius were those that could afford horses. Cavalry were the property of knights, who owned land, titles and the equipment for maintaining it all. Why in the world would you devote the commanding officer responsible for a battle's coordination and success into the role that every other soldier could do?

The typical definition of a general (flag) officer has this person in a non-combat role, far from the front. They command and plan and strategize, they don't take the position of a squad leader.

Rath_Darkblade

Half Life Expert wrote: »

Plus, didn't almost all generals ride around on horses prior to automobiles?

Historical Accuracy people!!!!

Almost all, true, but many Anglo-Saxon generals did not. They did ride a horse to the battlefield, but once they were there, they dismounted and joined into the famous Shield Wall. (This is exactly what Harold the Saxon did at Hastings, 1066).

daelin4 wrote: »

Alexander is one of the very rare exceptions of being the commander (and king, no less) to actually lead in battles.

The Burgundian Duke, Charles the Bold (or Rash, depending on the translation) is another exception. Charles had grand ideas and based his tactics on those of Alexander and Hannibal, but frankly, he was militarily inept (which is why he's not that famous).

The English kings Harold the Saxon and Richard III also led their troops in battle (although not quite like Alexander). Byrhtnoth, the British Ealdorman of Essex, also led his troops into battle against the Vikings in the battle of Maldon, 991.

I think that you mean that Alexander is one of those commanders who led in battles and did so successfully. (Sorry to be pedantic).

daelin4 wrote: »

The value of generals are not to go in and get themselves killed - there are plenty of troops to do that... Why in the world would you devote the commanding officer responsible for a battle's coordination and success into the role that every other soldier could do?

Very true and a very good question - yet history is full of men who did exactly that. They fell into the Peter Principle ("in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence", meaning that employees tend to be promoted until they reach a position at which they cannot work competently). A very good example is the 19th-century British soldier Redvers Buller; as a soldier and colonel, he was immensely tough, brave and kind-hearted. He was promoted to chief of staff to Sir Evelyn Wood in the Zulu Wars and first Boer War, received the VC and did very well for himself. But when he was promoted to commander-in-chief in the second Boer War (1899-1900), it seemed that he could not handle the pressures of command. For instance, at the battle of Colenso (1899) he forbade his men to dig trenches in case they spoiled the beautiful countryside, and warned them against crawling on the ground because that would mean getting mud on their uniform. He lost several battles against the Boers - losing some of them very badly - before finally winning the war.

After the war, the Boers resumed their guerrilla activities, and St. John Brodrick (the Minister for War) and Lord Roberts looked for a scapegoat. They found it in Buller and sacked him on half-pay, despite his request for a court martial or an appeal to the King. I personally sympathise with him, but there's no doubt that he was promoted beyond his capabilities and couldn't cope. (To be honest, Buller's officers - in particularly Charles Warren - were even worse bunglers than he was, and Buller was simply too soft-hearted to fire them).

Sorry to digress. *blush*